What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308461 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5308461?

Cleaning: $214.94 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $795.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308461?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464321-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5308461 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5308461?

Cleaning: $214.94 awarded to landlord; Cleaning: $795.00 awarded to landlord; Filing Fee: $28.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5308461?

The primary dispute was Cleanliness.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5308461?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/12464321-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

488G Gloucester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5308461 — Cleanliness

Reasons

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308461 — net $1,037.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$214.94	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs and cleaning	$795.00	Repairs and cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,037.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,037.94

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenants. Attempts to call them both were unsuccessful.

The landlord has applied for vacated compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.

The tenants did not leave the premises and the carpet reasonably clean. The landlord provided comprehensive photographic evidence and a tax invoice dated 22 May 2025 in support of these two claims. The landlord also provided a tax invoice from ChemDry dated 2 May 2025. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenants breached their obligations in this regard.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.

Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.

Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.

Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.

Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.

Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.

The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.

The landlord provided detailed photographic evidence of damage to doors and walls. I have also sighted a large area of the wall at the bottom of the stairs where the tenants have attempted their own repairs which appear to have made the damage worse. Having sighted the landlord’s photographic evidence I am entirely satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the damage as claimed by the landlord.

The amounts ordered are proved.

Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.

The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.

The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5308461 — net $1,037.94 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet Cleaning	$214.94	Carpet Cleaning
Repairs and cleaning	$795.00	Repairs and cleaning
Filing fee reimbursement	$28.00	Filing fee reimbursement
Net award	$1,037.94
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$1,037.94

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the landlord name and identifying details.
Maniah Anne Double and Treytrey Clifton Pari Jacobs must pay [The landlord/s] $1,037.94 immediately, calculated as shown in table below.

Reasons

The landlord attended the hearing via remote teleconference. There was no attendance by the tenants. Attempts to call them both were unsuccessful.
The landlord has applied for vacated compensation and reimbursement of the filing fee following the end of the tenancy.

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

At the end of the tenancy the tenant must leave the premises reasonably clean and tidy, remove all rubbish, return all keys and security devices, and leave all chattels provided for their benefit. See section 40(1)(e)(ii)-(v) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant is required to replace worn out smoke alarm batteries during the tenancy. See section 40(1)(ca) Residential Tenancies Act 1986. The tenant must also replace standard light bulbs.
The tenants did not leave the premises and the carpet reasonably clean. The landlord provided comprehensive photographic evidence and a tax invoice dated 22 May 2025 in support of these two claims. The landlord also provided a tax invoice from ChemDry dated 2 May 2025. Having sighted this evidence I am satisfied that the tenants breached their obligations in this regard.
The amounts ordered are proved.

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

A landlord must prove that damage to the premises occurred during the tenancy and is more than fair wear and tear. If this is established, to avoid liability, the tenant must prove they did not carelessly or intentionally cause or permit the damage. Tenants are liable for the actions of people at the premises with their permission. See sections 40(2)(a), 41 and 49B RTA.
Where the damage is careless, and occurs after 27 August 2019, section 49B RTA applies. If the landlord becomes aware of the damage after 27 August, the damage is presumed to have occurred after that date unless the tenant proves otherwise.
Where the damage is caused carelessly, and is covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to the lesser of the insurance excess or four weeks' rent (or four weeks' market rent in the case of a tenant paying income-related rent). See section 49B(3)(a) RTA.
Where the damage is careless and is not covered by the landlord's insurance, the tenant's liability is limited to four weeks' rent (or market rent). See section 49B(3)(b) RTA. Where insurance money is irrecoverable because of the tenant's conduct, the property is treated as if it is not insured against the damage. See section 49B(3A)(a) RTA.
Tenants are liable for the cost of repairing damage that is intentional or which results from any activity at the premises that is an imprisonable offence. This applies to anything the tenant does and anything done by a person they are responsible for. See section 49B(1) RTA.
Damage is intentional where a person intends to cause damage and takes the necessary steps to achieve that purpose. Damage is also intentional where a person does something, or allows a situation to continue, knowing that damage is a certainty. See Guo v Korck [2019] NZHC 1541.
The following damage was caused during the tenancy: damage to walls and doors. The damage is more than fair wear and tear, and the tenants have not disproved liability for the damage.
The landlord provided detailed photographic evidence of damage to doors and walls. I have also sighted a large area of the wall at the bottom of the stairs where the tenants have attempted their own repairs which appear to have made the damage worse. Having sighted the landlord’s photographic evidence I am entirely satisfied that the tenants are responsible for the damage as claimed by the landlord.
The amounts ordered are proved.
Because [The applicant/s] has wholly succeeded with the claim I must reimburse the filing fee.
The Tribunal must, on the application of a party that has wholly or substantially succeeded in proceedings, order that the party’s name or identifying particulars not be published, unless the Tribunal considers that publication is in the public interest or is justified because of the party’s conduct or any other circumstances of the case – section 95A Residential Tenancies Act.
The landlord applied for a name suppression order. The landlord is entitled to name suppression as the application is successful – see section 95A RTA.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308461 — Cleanliness at 488G Gloucester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5308461 — Cleanliness at 488G Gloucester Street, Linwood, Christchurch 8011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Did the tenant comply with their obligations at the end of the tenancy?

Is the tenant responsible for the damage to the premises?

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions